UFO Crash Caught on Video (explain this video)

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
For the love of God people. Did no one see where I said this has been thoroughly investigated and pretty much proven to be a missile test gone
wrong??? Look, I want to believe as much as the next UFO buff but a little common sense and intelligence MUST be used with these things.

I hope this thread gets moved to the hoax bin...

edit on 27-4-2012 by DerbyCityLights because: (no reason given)

So is it your opinion that if a video can be approximated/duplicated using "hoaxed" means then that is proof or evidence that the original
video is a hoax also? If so then are the Jurrasic Park movies evidence that dinosaurs are a hoax also?

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
For the love of God people. Did no one see where I said this has been thoroughly investigated and pretty much proven to be a missile test gone
wrong??? Look, I want to believe as much as the next UFO buff but a little common sense and intelligence MUST be used with these things.

Thoroughly investigated doesn't change what my eyes are seeing. That is NOT the shape of a missile, and missiles are not illuminated as this one was.

I never said the video was a hoax. It is an actual video. The hoax is that it is being passed off as an alien craft. Its the information with the
video that is the hoax, not the video itself. Nice try though.

You're right. The object isn't in the shape of a missile. It is in the shape of the missile exhaust. Huge difference.

There may well be proper video evidence of alien craft out there, but so far, I have yet to see it. You either get lights at night which are
impossible to determine usually, or you get misidentified videos such as this.

You're right. The object isn't in the shape of a missile. It is in the shape of the missile exhaust. Huge difference.

so when did exhaust's develop the ability to self maneuver

iv'e yet to see any reliable source's on what this is...

if anyone has any please feel free to post

The projectile uses its fins to maneuver. The exhaust provides the thrust. I don't understand what is so complicated about this.

If you don't want to accept an intelligent investigation of this incident, that just shows your own ineptitude and absorbing the truth. I have posted
it. Did you watch it? Particularly the third video.

But you go on believing a hoax. Cause that really does a lot for people who are searching for the truth.

I do believe that we are not alone out in the big black. I just don't think this is evidence of it.

And? I spent 8 years in the Navy, traveled all over the world including the Mideast, UK and many parts of Asia, speak two languages, have a bachelors
in Computer Electronic Technological Engineering, am working on my masters. I can show you the apple and prove that it is red, but if you still say
its purple, then you are the one with an intelligence issue.

That "UFO Crash" video has been around for years... One thing that needs to be taken into account whenever a supposed UFO video appears on the web
is how the camera man just happened to be in the right place at the right time with his camera filming the action. In the case of this video, it would
seem that it would have to have been known ahead of time that there would be an flying object to film/video and that's why there was a camera man
there to shoot the object. That would rule out a UFO.

It's a strange video though, and doesn't look too much like a missile either. But you can see at the beginning of the clip that as it approaches the
ground the first time, it's making a slight upward turn/curve as if to try to avoid hitting the ground, so the object is maneuverable.

This video is striking, at the very least. To call it a missile test and cross your arms to say that excuse is "good enough" is close-minded. If
perhaps they were testing something that was supposed to bounce as it struck the ground, I might buy that, but it still does not sit firmly with me.

Who is to say that it wasn't a flight test? There seems to be basically three schools of thought: (1) That there are indeed extraterrestrials
piloting unknown aircraft, (2) that the government has "designed" the hysteria and mysticism behind UFO's and aliens as a guise for what they're
actually doing, and (3) that both extraterrestrials nor any kind of advanced military/government technology exists. I usually reserve personal opinion
but I think anyone that subscribes to the latter is a fool.

Originally posted by TritonTaranis
if it were a rocket exhaust then it would not split into a million peices on second impact, therefore the illuminated object must be the actual
object,

You are making assumptions.

Why wouldn't/couldn't it do that? What about if the fuel was in a solid form?

With a solid fuel, that is already burning, I think it would be more than possible for it to break into lots of glowing pieces.

As eriktheawful mentioned earlier, missiles can use all kinds of
propellants/fuel, including solid fuel.

I'm surprised most posters ignored eriktheawful's posts, as they were right on the money as far as I could tell, bearing in mind I have limited
experience in this field.

With the footage apparently having been shot at White Sands, which is well known to be a missile test facility, well, denying it's a missile, is like
saying it looks like a duck, quacks like a duck, but it was filmed swimming in a pond, so it can't be a duck!

It's a testing range people - if they are just testing the fuel or guidance, why would they waste a live warhead and arm the missile with
one?

Someone commented at the start of this thread, that because it bounced off the ground, it must be a "disk" or "saucer", but again, that's not
true...

A bullet is also cylindrical, travels at high speed, and behaves in a very similar way when hitting the ground at a low angle:

Bullets spin, which gives them stability... and so do missiles.

I don't see why this could not have been a missile.

PS. If you watch the clip I posted, the tracer fire morphs into a fleet of orbs about 2/3 of the way through

Many of the people, including myself that do not think it is a missile, do not think it is alien, it is however a UFO because it is unidentified. I
cannot see any missile taking a slam like it is seen in it's first bounce, and then flying straight again. It would have bent or ruptured, causing it
to spiral and wobble. That is not being seen.

I never said the video was a hoax. It is an actual video. The hoax is that it is being passed off as an alien craft. Its the information with the
video that is the hoax, not the video itself. Nice try though.

You're right. The object isn't in the shape of a missile. It is in the shape of the missile exhaust. Huge difference.

There may well be proper video evidence of alien craft out there, but so far, I have yet to see it. You either get lights at night which are
impossible to determine usually, or you get misidentified videos such as this.

You misunderstood my question. Let me rephrase it.

Is it your belief that the videos links you provided are proof that the original video is a missile because of the fact that a similar looking effect
can be attained with a missile? In case you are not aware, the TV show you posted clips from, Fact or Faked: Paranormal, attempts to 'prove'
that video recorded events are were faked (hoaxed) by attempting to recreate them with 'non-paranormal' means. In other words, if mundane means can
create similar effects to those seen in videos is seemingly acts as evidence or even proof that the original videos were created in the same way.

My point was that the Jurassic Park videos creates videos that appear to be actual living dinosaurs, yet there are no real dinosaurs involves. Based
on the 'logic' of that TV show this should serve as evidence that 'original' dinosaurs were not living creatures at all. Get it now?

I understood you the first time. JP is cgi. Fact or Fake used real world means to prove/disprove a thesis. That's where your logic fails.

No, my previous analogy was just not completely valid. Here is another one. Let's say that a UFO behaves like a Chinese lantern or balloon. The
1991 Mexico eclipse UFO is a good example. If you study the case you will find that it is very unlikely the the object video taped by many people was
not a balloon or lantern, yet I'm sure that someone could make and float a balloon that looked similar when viewed for a few seconds. That does not
mean that the object filmed was not a metalic, solid object. A 'real world' example. Logic passes.

Here is another one. Let's say that a UFO behaves like a Chinese lantern or balloon. The 1991 Mexico eclipse UFO is a good example.

So since you cant fundamentally argue against my proof you have to move on to another video? Interesting...

If you study the case you will find that it is very unlikely the the object video taped by many people was not a balloon or lantern,

So if it is unlikeley the object is not a balloon then it would be a balloon...

yet I'm sure that someone could make and float a balloon that looked similar when viewed for a few seconds.

The characteristics of a high altitude balloon are hard to recreate with any kind of metallic objects of enormous size.

That does not mean that the object filmed was not a metalic, solid object.

No, it means that only the ones associated with the object can every truly know what it was.

A 'real world' example. Logic passes.

No, your logic is still quite lacking. I mean no offence, but you are just not using any common sense here. Man, I believe we are not alone. I believe
there is life out there, but you can not say that the video associated with this thread is proof. It has been proven to be a failed missile test at
white sands. If you continue to ignore the facts given as opposed to the opinions without any facts, then again your logic is destined to fail you.

Originally posted by DerbyCityLights
Ok, let me try this one more time for you...

Originally posted by TheFlash

No, my previous analogy was just not completely valid.

Which means you used failed logic.

Here is another one. Let's say that a UFO behaves like a Chinese lantern or balloon. The 1991 Mexico eclipse UFO is a good example.

So since you cant fundamentally argue against my proof you have to move on to another video? Interesting...

If you study the case you will find that it is very unlikely the the object video taped by many people was not a balloon or lantern,

So if it is unlikeley the object is not a balloon then it would be a balloon...

yet I'm sure that someone could make and float a balloon that looked similar when viewed for a few seconds.

The characteristics of a high altitude balloon are hard to recreate with any kind of metallic objects of enormous size.

That does not mean that the object filmed was not a metalic, solid object.

No, it means that only the ones associated with the object can every truly know what it was.

A 'real world' example. Logic passes.

No, your logic is still quite lacking. I mean no offence, but you are just not using any common sense here. Man, I believe we are not alone. I believe
there is life out there, but you can not say that the video associated with this thread is proof. It has been proven to be a failed missile test at
white sands. If you continue to ignore the facts given as opposed to the opinions without any facts, then again your logic is destined to fail you.

Do you know what logic is??

Where is the proof that the "video associated with this thread" has been "proven to be a failed missile test at white sands"? Are you saying that
the TV show you clips you posted are that proof? Where is the proof that the video was even taken at White Sands?

This content community relies on user-generated content from our member contributors. The opinions of our members are not those of site ownership who maintains strict editorial agnosticism and simply provides a collaborative venue for free expression.